Bindl Parker Proactive Work Behavior APA Handbook

7/30/2019 Bindl Parker Proactive Work Behavior APA Handbook

1/71

PROACTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR:

FORWARD-THINKING AND CHANGE-ORIENTED ACTION IN ORGANIZATIONS

Uta K. Bindl and Sharon K. Parker

Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom

Abstract

Proactive behavior at work is about making things happen. It involves self-initiated, anticipatory

action aimed at changing either the situation or oneself. Examples include taking charge to improve

work methods, proactive problem solving, using personal initiative, making i-deals, and proactive

feedback seeking. In this chapter, we define proactive behavior and distinguish it from related

concepts. We also identify higher-order categories of proactivity in the work place. We then

summarize a model of the antecedents and outcomes of proactive behavior, as well as moderators

of its effects on performance and other outcomes. We argue a review of this topic is timely given

both academic developments and technological and social change occurring within the work place.

Key terms: Proactive Behavior, Active Performance, Personal Initiative


2/71

PROACTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR

On a few occasions if theres something thats not working or is causing a duplication ofwork then Ive challenged it. One particular incident is that there was a process not so long backwhere wed send out a letter to a customer, then also leave a message on their phone. So what wedid - we evaluated that - so to leave a message first then, if theres no response, send a letter rather

than doing both at the same time. I know its only a little thing, but it saves a lot of time.

The above quotation is from a call centre agent whose job it is to sell energy. The behavior

reported by the agent aptly illustrates individual proactivity - or self-starting, future-oriented

behavior that aims to bring about change in ones self or the situation (Grant & Ashford, 2008;

Jones, 1986; Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006b). This particular comment is an example of

proactive behavior that is aimed at improving work processes, or changing the situation. Several

studies have found that employees who are proactive in this way also perform their job more

effectively (Ashford & Black, 1996; Morrison, 1993a, 1993b; Thompson, 2005). Proactivity also

applies in other domains for example, individuals can be more or less proactive in managing their

careers (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001), shaping their work environment (Wrzesniewski &

Dutton, 2001), and coping with stress (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997).

In recent times, there has been a surge of interest in proactivity at work, partly reflecting

academic developments, and partly reflecting the increasing importance of this type of behavior in

todays organizations. Academically, there has been a flurry of proactive concepts, albeit varying in

whether proactivity is seen as a stable disposition (Crant, 2000), a pattern of behaviors (Frese &

Fay, 2001), or as we do in this chapter a way of behaving at work (Grant & Ashford, 2008;


3/71


greater than ever; all trends that mean employees need to use their initiative and be proactive (e.g.,

Campbell, 2000; Wall & Jackson, 1995). Moreover, careers are increasingly boundary-less, and not

confined to one organization, requiring individuals to take charge of their own careers (Mirvis &

Hall, 1994). Thus, for both theoretical and practical reasons, a review on proactivity is timely.

We consider definitions and different types of proactivity in the first part of our review. We

then propose an integrating framework of proactive behavior that includes antecedents,

motivational processes, outcomes, and moderators (see Figure 1). We discuss how proactive

behavior is in part a function of individual attributes, but is also influenced, shaped and constrained

by the work context (e.g., the degree of job autonomy provided). We conclude by offering future

research directions. We focus primarily on individual-level proactivity, although we also briefly

discuss research on team and organization-level proactivity.

WHAT IS PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR?

Traditionally, work psychology has focused on work characteristics to which employees adjust in

order to perform their job (e.g., Hackman & Oldham, 1976), on employees commitment to goals

that are provided by the organization (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981), and on social

structures and cultures at work to which new employees need to adapt (Van Maanen, 1976). In

contrast, research on active behavior focuses on how employees change the characteristics of

their job and situation (Frese, Garst, & Fay, 2007). For example, employees sometimes redefine the

goals they are provided with by the organization to come up with more challenging goals (Hacker,


4/71


organization, in which the individual aims to bring about change, including change to the situation

(e.g., introducing new work methods, influencing organizational strategy) and/or change within

oneself (e.g., learning new skills to cope with future demands). This definition concurs with lay

definitions, which highlight both a future focus (anticipation) and a change focus (taking control).

Thus, the Oxford English Dictionary (2008) defines being proactive as creating or controlling a

situation by taking the initiative and anticipating events or problems, rather than just reacting to

them after they have occurred; (hence, more generally) innovative, tending to make things happen.

As an example, personal initiative is a form of proactive behavior that involves going beyond

assigned tasks, developing ones own goals, and attempting to solve problems that have not yet

occurred (Frese & Fay, 2001). Taking charge is also an example of proactive behavior, referring to

active efforts to bring about change on work methods (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Further examples

include individuals proactively shaping their work environment as a newcomer (Ashford & Black,

1996), actively building networks (Morrison, 2002), and persuading leaders to take notice of

important strategic issues (Dutton & Ashford, 1993). All of these behaviors have in common an

emphasis on taking control of a situation by looking ahead and initiating change. They are also all

behaviors that are partially determined by disposition, and partially influenced by situational forces,

such as job design and leadership.

Similarities and Differences in Proactive Behavior

Although having in common an emphasis on taking control of a situation in a self-directed


5/71


network building (form). The intended target of impact of this behavior can be the self (e.g., to

improve ones own performance), or others (e.g., to improve how one manages others). Employees

can seek feedback more or less often (frequency), and they can choose certain times for seeking

feedback, such as when project work is completed (timing). Employees can also employ different

tactics when engaging in feedback seeking, so for example, might ask another person directly for

feedback, or rather concentrate on monitoring and interpreting the other persons reactions.

Adopting an empirical approach, Parker and Collins (in press) investigated a higher-order

factor structure of proactive behavior at work. Factor analyses of multiple forms of proactive

behavior suggested at least three higher-order categories, each with a different target of impact.

First, proactive work behavior includes those behaviors aimed at taking control of, and bringing

about change in, the internal organization environment. Examples include taking charge (Morrison

& Phelps, 1999), voice (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), the implementation items of individual

innovation (Scott & Bruce, 1994), and problem prevention (Frese & Fay, 2001; Parker & Collins,

in press). Second, proactive strategic behavior includes those behaviors aimed at taking control of,

and causing change in, the broader units strategy and its fit with the external environment. For

example, individuals can sell important issues to the leader and thereby influence strategy

(Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998), and they can scan the environment to anticipate new

products and services the organization might introduce to better achieve competitive advantage

(Parker & Collins, in press). Third, proactive person-environment fit behavior includes those self-


6/71


the environment supplies the attributes desired or valued by an individual (supplies-values fit), such

as job-change negotiation (Ashford & Black, 1996), ex post i-deals and job crafting. Ex post i-deals

(Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006) are arrangements that are negotiated by a new person in the

job to accommodate their personal needs for the joint benefit of the individual and the organization.

Job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) involves individuals changing tasks, roles and

relationships to derive meaning and satisfaction from the work.

Grant and Parker (in press) identified a further higher-order dimension - proactive career

behavior. In contrast to the other types of proactivity that occur within the context of a designated

job, this dimension refers to proactivity beyond a specific job, such as actions to secure a job or to

get a new job (career initiative, Tharenou & Terry, 1998), or actions to negotiate a better deal prior

to accepting a job (ex ante i-deals, Rousseau et al., 2006).

One of the advantages of identifying these higher-order categories of proactive behaviors

is that the approach can help to identify common processes across the related behaviors within each

category. For example, the Parker & Collins (in press) study highlighted commonalities amongst

voice, individual innovation, and taking charge all types of proactive work behavior - even

though these tend to be distinct areas of enquiry. At the same time, the study also identified

differences across the categories of proactivity. For example, whereas conscientiousness was an

important predictor of proactive person-environment fit behaviors, as expected given the desire of

conscientious individuals to be dependable and fit well with the organization, it did not predict


7/71


order category) in that they aim to take control of, and bring about change within, the internal

organization environment. However, individual proactivity is directed towards ones individual job

(e.g., improving ones work procedures), team proactivity is directed towards helping the team and

other team members (e.g., making improvements to the way the team works), and organization-

member proactivity is directed towards changing wider organization systems or practices (e.g.,

improving systems for knowledge management across the organization). Similarly, Belschak and

Den Hartog (in press) identified three types of proactivity: self-oriented, social, and organizational

proactive behaviors, which are targeted at personal goals such as individual career progression, at

co-workers, and at the broader organization, respectively.

Issues around the Conceptualization of Proactivity

In this article, we have defined proactivity as a way of behaving, and therefore acknowledge

the role of both individual difference variables (e.g., personality) and situational forces (job design)

in shaping this type of action. Early research on the topic of proactivity, however, conceived of it as

a stable, dispositional variable. From this view point, proactive personality refers to an individual

who is relatively unconstrained by situational forces, and who effects environmental change

(Bateman & Crant, 1993). This concept assumes proactive individuals are proactive across multiple

contexts and over time, regardless of the contingencies of a situation. Whilst this personality

approach is valid, we prefer to focus on proactive actions within a particular context, recognizing

that proactive behavior is shaped not only by ones overarching personality, but by ones


8/71


boundary of their role (Morrison, 1994). Proactive individuals are likely to construe their roles

more broadly (Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997) and to redefine their roles to encapsulate new tasks

and goals (Frese & Fay, 2001). These issues have led researchers to suggest that a more useful way

of understanding proactivity is in terms of a dimension that is distinct from in-role and extra-role

behavior (and the related dimension of task/ contextual performance). Thus, all types of

performance whether they are defined as task, conceptual, citizenship, or extra-role can be

carried out more or less proactively (Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Griffin et al., 2007).

From this perspective, there is no need to confine proactive behavior to be citizenship or extra-role

behavior, and not all extra-role or citizenship behavior is proactive.

Proactive behavior can also be distinguished from related behaviors such as innovation and

adaptivity. Innovation is by definition novel, whereas being proactive does not necessarily imply

novelty. Employees might, for example, speak out on issues that affect their work group or they

might take charge to resolve a pre-existing problem. Such behavior can be classified as proactive,

yet not as innovative (Unsworth & Parker, 2002). Nevertheless, proactivity and innovation are

related in that future and change-oriented behaviors are important for the implementation aspect of

innovation. For example, Parker & Collins (in press) found high correlations between two proactive

behaviors (taking charge and voice) with the implementation items of Scott and Bruces (1994)

individual innovation measure (r=.58, r=.45, both p


9/71


A further perspective on proactivity, which coincides with our understanding of proactivity

as a way of behaving, is that it is not just a single act, but rather a process involving distinct phases.

Grant and Ashford (2008) suggested that proactive action involves several phases (anticipation;

planning; action towards impact). Frese and Fay (2001) similarly identified the redefinition of

tasks, information collection and prognosis, plan and execution, monitoring and feedback as key

phases of proactivity. Thus far, there is little empirical research from this perspective, as we

elaborate later in the chapter.

Summary

In sum, although there are many ways of thinking about proactivity, as well as many

relevant concepts across different domains, a useful approach is to consider proactivity as a self-

directed way of behaving (or process) that involves thinking ahead to take charge of a situation and

to bring about change in that situation or in ones self. Most fundamentally, it is about behavior that

makes things happen, whether that be to change the work place, the broader organization and its

strategy, ones fit within the organization, or ones personal career. We turn now to the core of the

chapter: understanding the antecedents, processes and outcomes relevant to proactivity.

ANTECEDENTS, PROCESSES AND OUTCOMES OF PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR

Figure 1 shows a model that integrates existing research on the antecedents, outcomes, and

underpinning processes of proactive behavior. Individual differences (personality, demographics,

knowledge and abilities), as well as situational differences (job design, leadership, and climate-


10/71


performance, well-being, identification). It has further been linked to outcomes on the team level

(e.g., team effectiveness), and to the organizational level (performance of the organization). The

link between proactive behavior and different individual outcomes has been shown to be partially

dependent on individual and situational moderators, labeled in our model as appropriateness of

proactive behavior. Our proposed model extends Crants (2000) earlier model that also showed

antecedents and outcomes of proactive behavior. In contrast to Crant, in our model, we indicate

interactions between individual and situational antecedents, differentiate proximal motivational

processes from more distal antecedents of proactive behavior, identify broad categories of proactive

behavior, and consider moderators of the outcomes of proactive behaviors.

---------------------------------------------------------

PLEASE INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE

---------------------------------------------------------

Motivational Processes (Proximal Antecedents)

We start our discussion of the model with the motivational processes that underpin

proactive behavior because it is these processes that are the most direct in their influence.

Specifically, we report evidence suggesting the importance for proactivity of what Mitchell and

Daniels (2003) refers to as cold (or cognitive-motivational) processes as well as hot (or affect-related) processes.

Cognitively-oriented Motivational Processes

F ti ti l ti t tt ti h b i t t iti ti ti l


11/71


Vroom, 1964). A belief that one can be successful (perceived capability) is important because

being proactive entails quite a high potential psychological risk to the individual. Consistent with

this idea, there is good evidence of the importance for proactivity of self-efficacy, or people's

judgments with regards to their capability to perform particular tasks (Bandura, 1986). In a sample

of part-time MBA students, self-efficacy beliefs were linked with higher levels of taking charge

behaviors as rated by co-workers (=.20; p


12/71


However, it is not enough for individuals to believe that they can achieve an outcome;

they also need to want to: Even if people are certain they can do a task, they may have no

compelling reason to do it (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002, p.112). In other words, there is a need to

focus on the why of proactive behavior. Relevant to this, a second motivational process

underpinning proactive behavior is that one sees this behavior as important for fulfilling ones

goals or aspirations. This theme fits with broader motivational theories such as goal-setting theory

(Locke & Latham, 1990), action theory (Hacker, 1985) and social cognitive theory (Bandura,

1986), and relates to Crants (2000) recommendation to consider the role of goals in proactive

behavior. At the simplest level, the outcome individuals are aiming for needs to be important to

them. For example, meta-analytic evidence suggests a positive relationship between a strong

financial need for employment, as well as high levels of employee commitment, with proactive job

search (rc=.21, p


13/71


repeatedly positively linked with proactive behaviors such as taking charge (=.28, p


14/71


personal initiative (=.16, p


15/71


broadens momentary motivational and cognitive processes, and a build mechanism in which

accumulated positive affect has an effect on more enduring cognitive-motivational states (e.g., self-

efficacy, role orientation) and ultimately affects individuals capabilities (e.g., their resilience and

coping ability). In regard to the broaden mechanism, Parker argued that proactive behavior requires

that individuals choose to allocate their effort towards challenging, longer-term, and often rather

risky goals. Positive affect is likely to influence the selection of such goals because it broadens

thinking and results in more flexible cognitive processes (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001; Isen, 1999).

Positive affect also promotes more responsible behavior that is consistent with a long-term focus

(Isen & Reeve, 2005). Consistent with these ideas, positive affect has been linked with the setting

of higher and more challenging goals (Ilies & Judge, 2005), as well as with engagement with a

more problematic future (Oettingen, Mayer, Thorpe, Janetzke, & Lorenz, 2005). Moreover,

proactive behavior, with its focus on change, requires regulating ones effort, staying on-task, and

not being de-railed by negative events. Evidence suggests that positive mood can create an upward

spiral of self-regulatory advantage that will help individuals sustain their proactive action (Martin,

Ward, Achee, & Wyer, 1993). Parker therefore proposed that positive affect also promotes the goal

striving that is necessary for proactivity.

In regard to the build mechanism, Parker argued that these processes over time accumulate to

build more enduring aspects of individuals, such as self-efficacy, resilience, and cognitive

complexity. This building-thesis is consistent with Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) who proposed


16/71


be important (see Isen, 1999). Positive affect might therefore promote proactivity only when the

goal or tasks are considered important and significant. Parker also proposed that high-arousal

positive affect (e.g., enthusiasm) will be more important in driving proactive behavior than low-

arousal positive affect (e.g., contentment). Contentment, for example, has been linked with

inactivity (Frijda, 1986) and appears to facilitate reflection rather than forward-thinking.

Enthusiasm, in contrast, is likely to enhance individuals energy for behaving proactively.

Recent research supports some of Parkers (2007) propositions. In a cross-sectional study

conducted in a health care sector environment (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007), employees who

indicated positive high-arousal work-related affect also reported higher levels of personal initiative

at work (=.26, p


17/71


and issue selling when individuals did not possess a high performance orientation. When

performance orientation was high, the negative association of a strong desire to prove ones

competency on proactivity appeared to overwhelm any value of positive affect. The authors

interpreted these findings as suggesting that positive affect has a direct influence on some types of

proactive behaviors, whilst for others perhaps those that are perceived as more risky such as

innovation and issue selling other motivational dynamics might play a suppressing role.

Several studies investigated the influence of concepts on proactivity at work which are rather

close to, albeit not identical with, positive work-related affect. Job engagement, for example, was

measured by investigating respondents feelings of work-related vigor, dedication and absorption.

Employees who feel engaged should be more likely to engage in effortful behaviors that are related

with changing the situation or themselves, than employees who feel less engaged. In support of this

argument, Salanova and Schaufeli (2008) found for a Spanish and a Dutch sample, respectively,

positive relationships between work engagement and self-reported personal initiative (=.56, =.64,

both p


18/71


consecutive days. In a similar string of research, but showing even more powerful lagged effects,

Binnewies, Sonnentag and Mojza (2009) showed that the feeling of being recovered in the morning

predicted higher levels of self-initiative during the same work day (=.21, p


19/71


Finally, in her model of affect, Parker (2007) proposed contagion and signaling as two

processes by which individuals affect can affect others affect, and thereby their proactive

behavior. In this vein, Ang, Cummings, Straub and Earley (1993), in a series of laboratory studies,

showed that individuals were more likely to engage in feedback seeking when they perceived that

the person they were to seek feedback from was in a good mood. Similarly, Morrison and Bies

(1991) in their literature review argued that employees are more likely to engage in feedback

seeking if the person to seek feedback from is in a positive mood, because they feel their act of

feedback seeking will be seen more favorably. Additionally, Rafaeli (2008) proposed that

colleagues negative affect may deplete an individuals own resources. A depletion of resources, in

turn, could result in decreased levels of proactivity at work.

Overall, there is reasonably good evidence that affect can promote or inhibit proactive

behaviors. However, future research needs to disentangle the role of different types of affect, as

well as dynamic, intra as well as inter-personally affective processes, in more detail. For example,

Russell and Feldman Barrett (1999; Russell, 2003) suggested to differentiate affect into the

dimensions of pleasure vs. displeasure, and activation vs. deactivation. Research that accounts for

these dimensions will yield further insights into the role of affective experiences on proactivity at

work. Moreover, how affect relates to judgments of efficacy and individuals proactive goals have

yet to be investigated, as have the build mechanisms proposed by Parker (2007).

Individual and Situational Antecedents of Proactive Behavior


20/71


suggesting that the various individual and situational factors can have their influence through the

motivational processes described above.

Individual Antecedents

Demographics. Several studies have investigated the relationship between demographical

factors and proactive behavior at work. Age appears to be negatively related to several proactive

person-environment fit and career behaviors. For example, Kanfer and colleagues (2001) in their

meta-analysis, found a very small, albeit significantly negative, mean corrected sample-weighted

correlation (rc=-.06, p


21/71


of a multi-national study in several industrialized countries, in networking behaviors (=.09, p


22/71


engage in voice (=.09, p.05 for proactivity) in that non-white employees typically also possessed lower

educational qualifications. These qualifications in their own right might explain the relationship

between ethnicity and the level of engagement in proactive behaviors.

To our knowledge there is only one study so far which has explicitly investigated the role of

culture on proactive behavior at work. In a study across six countries, including Flanders, England,

Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain, Claes and Ruiz-Quintanilla (1998) investigated the

influence of cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1991) on different types of proactive career behaviors.

The researchers followed young workers for three years after their first job entry. Culture

significantly related to all proactive behaviors investigated. For example, if individuals within a

country generally tended to feel less comfortable with uncertain or unknown situations, they were

also less likely to engage in skill development (=-.12, p


23/71


(Heine, Markus, Lehman, & Kitayana, 1999) an effect which is likely to be prevalent when

engaging in proactive behaviors. These findings raise interesting future research questions as to, for

example, in how far proactivity varies in Asian companies, as compared to in US-American or

European companies where most research on proactivity has been conducted so far.

In sum, little research has explicitly investigated the relationship between demographical

factors and proactivity at work. So far, research on proactivity has almost exclusively looked at the

antecedents of proactivity at work for white-collar employees in industrialized Western countries,

and has investigated relationships with demographic factors more in order to statically control for

their effects than in order to understand them.

Knowledge and abilities. Knowledge and abilities have been suggested to influence

individuals proactive behavior at work. Fay and Frese (2001, p.104) argued: To be able to take

initiative, one needs a good and thorough understanding of what ones work is, that is, one needs

job-relevant knowledge, skills, and cognitive ability. There has been some empirical support for

this argument. For example, for employees in East and West Germany, Fay and Frese (2001) found

moderately positive relationships between job qualification and both self-rated and other-rated

personal initiative (r=.24 to .48, p


24/71


(2001) identified three facets of knowledge that facilitated individuals proactive issue selling

attempts to the top management: relational knowledge (e.g., insights into questions such as who

will be affected by the issue), normative knowledge (e.g., insights into the question of what kinds

of meetings or social gatherings are considered legitimate decision forums?); and strategic

knowledge (e.g. insights into the question what are the organizations goals?). Building on Dutton

et al.s (2001) work, in a further, qualitative study, Howell and Boies (2004) compared 19 pairs of

innovation champions and non-champions across 15 organizations. Results for coded content

analyses indicated that contextual knowledge positively related to individuals packaging ideas for

promotion (=.53, p


25/71


and distinct proactive behaviors. To name a few, exemplary findings, proactive personality has been

positively linked with network building ( =.18, p


26/71


change-oriented nature of these proactive work and strategic behaviors. In contrast, conscientious

individuals have a special desire to be dependable and therefore strive to fit in well with the

organization, and are thereby more likely to engage in proactive person-environment fit behaviors.

Several further character traits that are linked to employees willingness to look ahead and

to learn new things also influence on proactive behavior: For example, employees who are high in

intellectual curiosity were found to be more likely to engage in environmental scanning,

specifically in gathering useful information from outside and inside the organization, than were

intellectually less curious employees (Howell & Shea, 2001). Employees who are high in

consideration of future consequences, the extent to which one considers distant versus immediate

consequences, were also found to be more proactive over a wide range of domains (Parker &

Collins, in press). On the contrary, employees who tend to have a reluctant attitude towards change,

also tend to show less proactivity at work. Fay and Frese (2000) showed that psychologically

conservative individuals, measured as the degree to which individuals favored an authoritarian way

of upbringing and were politically conservative, scored lower on personal initiative, probably

because they were conservative about change ( =-.23, p


27/71


orientation is that individuals who emphasize learning processes rather than demonstrating

capability might find it less risky and more valuable to engage in feedback seeking and therefore

engage more frequently in this type of behavior (VandeWalle, 2003; VandeWalle & Cummings,

1997). Finally, consistent with the importance of perceived capability for the choice to engage in

proactive behaviors as outlined earlier on in this chapter, traits which tap into individuals

perception of control and self-worth have been positively linked to proactive behaviors at work

(rc=.25, p>.05 for self esteem in Kanfer et al., 2001; see e.g. Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, for a

theoretical elaboration on the relationship between control-related needs and job crafting).

In sum, plenty of research to date has focused on dispositional antecedents of proactivity

work, and has provided multi-faceted insights into the role of different types of predispositions for

proactive behaviors. Interestingly, some dispositions seem to promote a wide range of proactive

behaviors (e.g., proactive personality), whereas others seem to be helpful in promoting only very

specific types of proactivity at work (e.g., learning goal orientation). Systematic meta-analyses

could reveal more insight into the overall strengths of relationships, while taking into account non-

significant results in (non) published studies.

Situational Antecedents

Being proactive is certainly about the type of person one is: demographics and personality

factors all play a role. However the situation also makes a big difference. Individuals in

psychologically unsafe, de-motivating work teams, for example, are unlikely to take the risk to be


28/71


2005; Morgeson & Campion, 2003; Parker & Ohly, 2008). As elaborated earlier, proactive

behavior at work is a special type of motivated behavior, which goes hand in hand with perceptions

of control and capability. Work design aspects that promote these perceptions should therefore be

linked with higher levels of proactivity. In this vein, the concepts of job autonomy, complexity and

control, all concerned with the degree to which employees can choose how to proceed with their

work, have been very consistently shown to be positively related with proactive behaviors (e.g.,

Frese et al., 2007; Morrison, 2006). For example, job autonomy has been positively linked with

proactive behaviors such as personal initiative (=.38, p


29/71


At low levels of control, employees engage in voice owing to a particularly strongmotivation arising from personal dissatisfaction with the status quo. At high levels ofcontrol, employees engage in voice owing to a particularly strong motivation arising fromenhanced expectancy of successfully influencing organizational outcomes. At intermediatelevels of control, neither motivation is strong (p.1192).

These findings relate to our earlier review of the influence of affect-related motivational processes.

One could speculate that low control evokes high arousal negative affect, and thereby promotes

voice via a discrepancy-reduction motivation; high control is likely associated with high arousal

positive affect, thus both encouraging voice out of a broadening mechanism; and medium levels of

control might be related with low-arousal affective states which thus promote inactivity.

In line with Tangirala and Ramanujams (2008) findings, other negative work

characteristics have been positively linked with proactive behavior. There has been both conceptual

consideration for (Frese & Fay, 2001), as well as empirical support for (e.g., Fay & Sonnentag,

2002; Ohly et al., 2006), the positive role of job stressors like time pressure and situational

constraints in motivating employees to engage in proactive behavior at work. For example, Ohly

and Fritz (in press) in an experience-sampling approach found support for the assumption that

employees perceive time pressure as challenging, and that challenge appraisal in turn promotes

proactivity at work. A theory which researchers repeatedly drew on is control theory (Carver &

Scheier, 1982). Stressors can thus be perceived as a deviation between a desired and an actual

situation, thereby motivating employees to take an active approach in order to decrease the

difference between the desired and actual states. Research on proactive coping similarly highlights


30/71


suggests that repeated exposure could deplete individuals resources in the long run, thus not only

decreasing well-being (e.g., Zapf, Dormann, & Frese, 1996), but also decreasing long-term

proactivity. Other work characteristics have also been suggested (Grant & Ashford, 2008) to be

important for proactivity (e.g., accountability; see also Anseel, Lievens, & Levy, 2007, for future

avenues of research in feedback seeking) but have thus far not had much empirical attention.

Leadership. Leaders, through their impact on motivation as well as their direct effect on the

work environment, likely have a role to play in shaping proactive action. Participative leadership,

which emphasizes the value of subordinates contributions as well as involvement in decision

making, predicted higher levels of proactive service performance beyond several individual

antecedents (=.30, p


31/71


A high quality exchange between leader and employee should promote a climate of trust, in

which employees dare to engage in change-oriented, self-initiated behaviors. In support of this,

leader-member exchange (LMX) has been positively related to individual innovation behaviors

(r=.34, p


32/71


engage in taking charge behaviors (=.15, p


33/71


colleagues (2009) showed that for employees with a high level of job control, the positive

relationship between feeling recovered in the morning with personal initiative during the working

day was stronger. Job control seemingly allows employees to be proactive when they feel

recovered at work, and equally to engage in less proactive behavior if they dont feel recovered.

Those employees with low job control may not be in the position to vary their behavior at work

regardless of how recovered they feel. Similarly, Grant and Sumanth (in press) investigated

proactivity amongst a sample of professional fundraisers working for a US-based university. The

researchers found that disposition can compensate for a weak situation: Those individuals who

were high in dispositional trust propensity and were also prosocially motivated showed high levels

of job-related initiative, even if they indicated their managers were not trustworthy.

Sometimes there is a positive synergy between the work situation and individuals. For

example, Kim and Wang (2008) showed that individuals who are high in proactive personality are

more likely to seek feedback from their supervisors if the overall climate in the organization is

perceived to be fair, and if the supervisor usually engages in positive feedback, than are employees

who are less dispositionally proactive. Similarly, McAllister and colleagues (2007) found that

employees who perceive their organization as high in procedural justice and who simultaneously

hold high role breadth self-efficacy beliefs were rated highest as taking charge at work by their

supervisors (interaction effect of=.20, p


34/71


effectively, whereas passive employees do not make good use of autonomy and so high levels of

job demands lead to higher levels of strain irrespective of the level of job control.

Sometimes the situation and individual differences seem to substitute for each other. For

example, Speier and Frese (1997) showed that the relationship between job control and initiative is

higher for those individuals who have low levels of self-efficacy beliefs. The favorable work

situation thus seemed to substitute low individual predispositions to act proactively. In a similar

vein, LePine and Van Dyne (1998), drawing on behavior plasticity theory (Brockner, 1988),

showed that individuals with low self-esteem were more receptive to favorable situational

characteristics promoting voice behaviors in a group (e.g., high levels of overall group autonomy),

than were individuals with high levels of self-esteem. Similarly, Rank and colleagues (in press),

also drawing on behavioral plasticity theory, found that leadership may substitute for a lack of

individual self-esteem. The researchers investigated the influence of leadership styles and

individual differences (organization-based self-esteem) on individual innovation behavior.

Transformational leadership was more strongly positively related with individual innovation for

individuals with lower levels of organization-based self-esteem than for individuals with high

levels in organization-based self-esteem, indicating a compensatory effect of leadership on

individual differences.

There are of course many other potential interactions between the situation and the

individual that might influence proactivity. Grant and Ashford (2008) proposed that three


35/71


individuals may be willing to engage in proactive behavior irrespective of the prevalence of

accountability. These ideas, while theoretically promising, still await empirical support.

In sum, the focus of research on antecedents of proactive behavior at work to date has been

on individual differences, such as proactive personality. In recent times, researchers have begun to

investigate the influences of situational characteristics on proactive behavior at work, as well as

interactions between personality factors and situational characteristics. The nature of work,

leadership, and work climate can clearly shape employee proactivity. Future research, which

focuses on a theory-driven, integrated and thoroughly longitudinal approach to studying the field of

interest, will be needed in order to gain further insights into the complex, and possibly reciprocal,

influences of disposition and situation on proactive behaviors at work.

Outcomes of Proactive Behavior

Whilst most of the research on employee proactivity focused on antecedents, some research has

investigated outcomes of proactive behaviors. Here we focus on individual, team, and

organizational-level outcomes.

Individual-level Outcomes of Proactivity

Proactive behavior has both conceptually, as well as empirically, been linked to superior

performance. Particularly in uncertain contexts, taking charge of the situation rather than passively

waiting to be instructed, should have performance benefits (Griffin et al., 2007). Grant, Parker and

Collins (2009) found that proactive individuals were rated more positively in their overall job


36/71


Individuals who seek feedback should overall perform more highly (Ashford, 1986; Ashford et al.,

2003). Consistent with this, in a series of studies, Morrison (1993a, 1993b) found a positive

influence of proactive information seeking on individual performance. Specifically, in a sample of

accountants who were new to their jobs, higher levels of feedback seeking predicted increased

levels of task mastery three months later (=.18, p


37/71


development); these findings are again stressing the importance of proactive career behaviors for

shaping interpersonal relations in order to progress within a company.

By being proactive, individuals seem to be able to craft better jobs for themselves to

achieve jobs that represent advances in their career and/or jobs that are satisfying. For example,

higher levels of career initiative and individual innovation predicted substantial increases in career

satisfaction (=.36, =.37, respectively, both p


38/71


who show personal initiative at work have been found to be also more likely to negotiate more

flexible working conditions (=.10, p


39/71


requests (r=.24, p


40/71


level, but also at the organizational level. They argued that personal initiative means dealing

actively with organizational and individual problems and applying active goals, plans, and

feedback. This furthers individual self-development and contributes to organizational success.

Consistent with this proposition, studies have shown that small enterprise owners proactivity is

positively related with firm success in Uganda and in East Germany (Koop, de Reu, & Frese, 2000;

Zempel, 1999; both cited in Frese & Fay, 2001). In a further study, Frese, Van Gelderen and

Ombach (2000) conducted structured interviews with small scale firm owners (N=80),

investigating on their proactive strategies. Responses were numerically coded to reflect different

degrees of proactivity. Whilst proactive business strategies were not necessarily linked with

business success, reactive business strategies, the opposite dimension of proactivity, related

negatively with the success of the firm measured on the basis of objective profit data (r=-.26,

p


41/71


investigate organizational-level proactivity by surveying different organizational stakeholders, in

order to capture differing point of views on the proactivity of the corporation in question.

Moderators of Outcomes

Proactive behavior might not always lead to positive individual outcomes. Seibert and

colleagues (2001) found that employees who voiced many concerns at work were less likely to

progress with their salary and to be promoted two years later, than were their colleagues who

voiced fewer concerns. Given that other studies have found proactivity to enhance career outcomes,

this study suggests the role of moderators. For example, it might be that voice is not always

displayed in an appropriate way, thereby being perceived negatively by supervisors, or perhaps in

some situations, voicing concerns might be rather passive behavior, representing complaining with

little effort to take charge of the problems or issues oneself.

Most attention in disentangling the contingencies under which proactivity unfolds positive

outcomes has been given to psychological moderators. For example, the role of situational

judgment, which reflects the degree to which individuals obtain the general ability to make

effective judgments or responses to situations, was highlighted by Chan (2006): Individuals who

were both highly proactive and high in situational judgment reported significantly higher levels of

job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and were rated more favorably by their supervisor

in terms of job performance. Individuals who were proactive but low in situational judgment, on

the other hand, were rated less favorably by their supervisors.


42/71


ratings by supervisors when employees had high levels of prosocial values, or low levels of

negative affect. Drawing on attribution theory, the authors reasoned that employees values and

affect signal to supervisors the appropriateness to make positive attributions for proactivity. For

example, the proactivity of employees with prosocial values is likely to be directed toward

benefiting others co-workers, supervisors, the wider team, and/or the organization behaviors of

interest to supervisors who are responsible for facilitating collective goal achievement. In support

of this, Grant and Mayer (in press) found that employees who are both high in prosocial as well as

impression management motives were rated highest in terms of their initiative at work by

supervisors and colleagues. The researchers concluded that employees who are both good soldiers

andgood actors are most likely to emerge as good citizens in promoting the status quo.

Moderating effects of proactive behaviors have also been found within the context of

socialization into the organization. Erdogan and Bauer (2005) investigated the relationship between

dispositional proactivity and career satisfaction, as well as job satisfaction. The authors found that

the degree of fit between employees with their organization and their job can predict whether

proactivity leads to higher satisfaction. For example, amongst teachers, proactivity led to higher job

satisfaction only when these teachers also reported a high fit between themselves and their schools.

Together, these findings suggest the perils of assuming that proactivity will always lead to

positive outcomes. As well as situational judgment, prosocial values, and affect, other individual

differences might be important moderators on the effects of proactive behavior. Situational


43/71


in highly uncertain operational environments where it is not possible to pre-specify all desired

responses (see also Griffin et al., 2007), but this hypothesis has not been examined.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

In this section, we focus on questions that are related to the assessment of proactive behavior

at work, as well as on questions related to the research design involved in the assessment.

Assessment of Proactive Behavior

Most proactive research to date has focused on self-report, likert-type measures of proactive

behavior at work (e.g., Bateman & Crant, 1993; Parker & Collins, in press). As with all behaviors,

there are the usual challenges associated with asking individuals to self-rate their proactivity, such

as social desirability bias. Nevertheless, gauging employee proactivity from other sources such as

supervisors or colleagues has its own disadvantages, including egocentric bias as means of

impression management (e.g., supervisors reporting that of course, their subordinates are

proactive) and observational bias (e.g., employees might behave more proactively when they are

being observed). A more specific problem is that, because proactive behavior can involve

questioning directions and challenging accepted practices, it is not always welcomed by supervisors

or colleagues, and can be assessed negatively by them (Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, & Tag, 1997).

Several solutions have been employed to overcome these challenges of assessing proactive

behavior. Frese and colleagues (1997) used a complex interview technique based on the situational

interview technique (Latham & Saari, 1984). The researchers presented the interviewees with


44/71


ratings were complemented by additional quantitative self-report measures of the employees, as

well as by spouse-ratings of proactivity. Another interview- and survey combination was employed

by Parker and colleagues (2006b). On the one hand, the researchers investigated two proactive

behaviors (proactive idea implementation as well as proactive problem solving behaviors) by

means of a survey. Proactive idea implementation was investigated by asking respondents about the

quantity of new ideas they had over the last year, related to improvement at work, such as saving

money or cutting down costs. Answers were scored on the number of ideas mentioned, in

conjunction with the criteria on whether they had put this idea forward, and whether it was

implemented. Proactive problem solving was measured by using context-specific problem

scenarios (e.g., dealing with tangled wire). Respondents were asked how they would usually act in

these situations, and could choose from a list of preset, possible answers that varied in their degree

of proactivity, as previously rated by a group of managers and researchers. The researchers then

correlated these survey measures with ratings based on in-depth interviews with a subsample of

employees. For example, in interviews, proactive problem prevention was investigated by asking

participants about barriers for effectiveness at work, and then probing them on how they dealt with

this problem, while confronting them with several barriers to a solution of the problem. The

resulting significant positive correlations between the survey-based measures and the ratings from

interviews suggested the former was a valid approach.

A scenario-based, approach to measuring proactive behavior was recently introduced by


45/71


aims to assess personal initiative as a dispositional variable ones stable-level of proactivity

across lots of situations rather than Parker et al.s (2006b) focus on proactivity within a specific

context.

In sum, the assessment of proactive behavior at work so far has varied in terms of

approaches that choose self vs. other-report measures of proactive behavior, and context-free or

context-specific measures. Regarding the former, self-report measures have been found valid

(Parker et al., 2006b), so this approach appears a legitimate approach to measuring this type of

behavior. Nevertheless, if the study design permits it, a combination of different sources for

assessment seems the optimal solution. Regarding the question of whether proactive behavior

should be measured in a rather context-specific or context-free way, this depends on whether the

focus is proactivity in a particular situation or general proactive personality. One advantage of

context-specific approaches is that general statements for proactive behavior such as I make things

happen might result in less valid answers due to social desirability, relative to context-specific

questions where social desirable answers are less obvious (Parker et al., 2006b). On the other hand,

context-specific measures are less applicable to other contexts, therefore inhibiting generalized

inferences across samples. Highly context-specific measures also require more resources than

generalized measures in that they need to be specifically developed prior to the investigation. We

recommend a careful choice according to the specific objectives that underlie each investigation.

A further issue regarding the assessment of proactive behavior is the choice of the concrete


46/71


differences across situations might not be captured. Similarly, at the team and organizational level,

proactivity has been either measured as the aggregation of individual level-behavior, or as an

attribute, rather than as a team or organizational behavior. An approach to conceptualizing

proactivity at the organizational level was formulated by Shepard, Betz and OConnel (1997). The

researchers argued that proactive organizations are characterized by engaging in co-operation,

participation, and negotiation with stakeholders, as well as by directly anticipating potential harm

to stakeholders. This approach still awaits empirical assessment.

Methodological Approaches

Much research on proactive behavior at work to date has focused on cross-sectional, inter-

individual approaches to measurement (e.g., Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007; Parker et al., 2006b).

Several studies tried to overcome the limitations of such designs by employing rigorous,

longitudinal designs (e.g., Frese et al., 2007; Parker, 1998). However, one challenge with

longitudinal studies is choosing the appropriate time frame. At the moment, little is known about

the temporal linkages between antecedents and proactive behavior, such as how long it takes work

characteristics to promote or prevent proactive behavior, or the time it takes for proactive behavior

to unfold and influence well-being or performance. For example, Parker and Ohly (2008, p.266)

proposed that work design can impact on positive affect, which might have a relatively immediate

(although perhaps short-lived) effect on job crafting consistent with the broaden-and-build theory

(Fredrickson, 2001). However, work design might also affect employees level of self-esteem or


47/71


in order to be able to partial out the amount of variance caused by the measure of interest over time

(see Zapf et al., 1996).

Another challenge when measuring proactive behavior over time lies in its dynamic nature.

Proactive behaviors by definition influence the situation. At the same time, situations influence

proactive behaviors. For example, employees might engage in job change negotiation in order to

better fit the job, which might result in higher autonomy that then promotes further proactive

behaviors. Methods that allow in-depth investigation of processes, such as intra-individual

techniques like diary studies (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009; Sonnentag, 2003) and laboratory studies

(LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Morrison, 2006; Staw & Boettger, 1990), are fruitful. Qualitative

methods that involve a more exploratory approach could also be useful for understanding the

processes that underpin proactivity (Dutton et al., 1997, 2001; Howell & Boies, 2004).

We also recommend intervention studies as an especially powerful way to demonstrate

causal processes (Parker, Johnson, & Collins, 2006a; Searle, 2008; Raabe, Frese, & Beehr, 2007;

Yu, Collins, White, Fairbrother, & Cavanagh, 2008). For example, Raabe and colleagues (2007)

introduced career self-management training. In a four-wave study design, the authors showed that

the intervention led to higher levels of active career self-management behaviors via influences in

goal commitment (=.34, p


48/71


proactive job search behaviors, comprising 68 independent samples with overall 19,957

participants. However, what is now needed is meta-analytic work on the antecedents of proactive

behaviors more in general, for example by drawing on systematic frameworks summarized earlier

in this chapter (e.g., Parker & Collins, in press; Belschak & Den Hartog, in press; Griffin et al.,

2007). Researchers have recently started to engage in this type of more integrated, meta-analytic

work on proactive behaviors (e.g., Tornau & Kunze, 2008) but such work is currently unpublished.

The use of more integrative approaches to proactive research, as discussed in this section of our

review, will hopefully generate a more complete insight into the nature of proactivity at work.

AN AGENDA FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

We complete our chapter on proactive behavior at work by suggesting some key directions

for research in this area, including some of the methodological challenges.

A Process Perspective

Proactivity research has focused on a rather static view on proactive behavior, assuming

that being proactive is a single event. The dynamic processes involved in being proactive have thus

largely been neglected. Building on earlier conceptual work (Frese & Fay, 2001; Grant & Ashford,

2008), Bindl and Parker (2009) proposed and found initial empirical support for a process model of

proactivity. The authors proposed four phases that derived from consideration of action theory

(Frese & Zapf, 1994; Hacker, 1985). In the first phase, envisioning, individuals set and decide on

proactivity-related goals. For example, in the envisioning phase an employee would realize that the


49/71


consists of the individuals efforts to retrospectively think about the success, failure, consequences,

or implications of their proactive behavior. Whilst the third, enacting, phase is outward-focused and

observable, the other three phases are likely to be mostly, even though not necessarily fully,

internalized. Bindl and Parker (2009) suggest that the four phases, while logically sequential, will

not always be sequential in an applied context. For example, an employee might think about ways

of improving their tasks, prepare for and engage in behaviors to improve their tasks, and then if the

behavior does not appear satisfactory, go back and re-think alternative ways to improve their tasks.

Although Bindl and Parker (2009) showed that different phases of proactive behavior at

work can be empirically meaningfully distinguished, future research is needed to investigate the

process of employees engaging in these different phases of proactive behavior, including how the

process varies for different forms of proactive behavior (see e.g., Belschak & Den Hartog, in press;

Parker & Collins, in press). Voicing an issue that affects the workplace might represent a more

momentary act, whereas the engagement in individual innovation might involve a phase of

planning with intense information processes or liaising with experts. How these processes evolve

over time is also unclear. For example, Grant and Ashford (2008) proposed that the repeated

display of proactive behavior results in more automated processes, with employees then displaying

proactive behavior regardless of expected feedback or consequences.

Situational Antecedents

As noted earlier, although researchers have begun to investigate situational variables as


50/71


stressors at work have been found to have either promoting (Fay & Sonnentag, 2002) or inhibiting

(Sonnentag, 2003) effects on proactive behavior. Research is needed to further identify under

which circumstances situational influences may promote or inhibit proactive behaviors at work.

Moreover, since proactive behaviors are both rather interpersonal, as well as risky in character,

issues such as trust in the supervisor and/or colleagues (e.g., McAllister, 1995), organizational

climate (e.g., Baer & Frese, 2003) as well as leader-membership exchange (e.g., Graen & Uhl-

Bien, 1995) are likely more important determinants of proactive behavior than hitherto considered.

Benefits versus Costs

As we noted earlier, the boundary conditions around the outcomes of proactivity have not

been fully explored. Grant and Ashford (2008, p.24) concluded: Insofar as proactive behavior

involves expending additional effort, challenging the status quo, and disrupting deviating from

assigned tasks, prescribed roles, reified norms, accepted practices, and existing routines,

researchers should expect to find mixed effects and unintended consequences for groups,

organizations, and employees themselves. We advocate more studies of the effects of proactive

behavior on employee well-being. For example, Chan (2006) showed that employees who are

proactive but lack situational judgment may encounter negative evaluations from supervisors. Such

negative evaluations might lower employee well-being. Proactive behaviors may be regarded as an

attempt to rock the boat, resulting in negative responses from colleagues and supervisors (Frese &

Fay, 2001). How employees cope with negative reactions from their environment related to


51/71


motivation theory (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Hacker, 1985; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). We join with

the call made by prior reviews on proactive behavior (Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008) for

theoretical advancement on the topic. Theories pertaining to self-identity (e.g., Markus & Nurius,

1986) and social processes (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1986), for example, could usefully be applied to

the topic of proactive behavior. Additionally, further integration of proactivity research with

advances in related fields of research, such as entrepreneurship (e.g., Baron, 2008), innovation

(e.g., Scott & Bruce, 1994), and stress management (e.g., proactive coping, Aspinwall & Taylor,

1997) will also help so synthesize and develop knowledge.

CONCLUSION

Proactive behavior at work is a timely and relevant topic for todays work places. With

greater decentralization and fast-paced change, it is increasingly important that employees take

charge of their careers and their work environments. Such behavior will not always be positive, as

our review suggests. But the price of passivity might be even greater than occasional misdirected

proactivity. Most importantly, our review suggests that one can shape employee proactivity through

designing work structures, leader behaviors, and work climates that foster employees confidence,

activate challenging goals, and promote positive affect. We hope our review will guide researchers

and practitioners to gain further insight into proactive behavior at work.

REFERENCES

Ang, S., Cummings, L. L., Straub, D. W., & Earley, P. C. (1993). The effects of information


52/71


Aragn-Correa, J. A. (1998). Strategic proactivity and firm approach to the natural environment.

Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 556-567.

Aragn-Correa, J. A., Hurtado-Torres, N., Sharma, S., & Garca-Morales, V. J. (2008).

Environmental strategy and performance in small firms: A resource-based perspective.

Journal of Environmental Management, 86(1), 88-103.

Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective.Academy

of Management Journal, 29(3), 465-487.

Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for

control.Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 199-214.

Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of

research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29(6),

773-799.

Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a limb: The role of

context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues.Administrative Science

Quarterly, 43(1), 23-57.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human

Relations, 48(2), 97-125.

Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1997). A stitch in time: Self-regulation and proactive coping.

Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 417-436.


53/71


Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological

safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

24(1), 45-68.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baron, R. A. (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management

Review, 33(2), 328-340.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A

measure and correlates.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118.

Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (in press). Pro-self, pro-social, and pro-organizational foci of

proactive behavior: Differential antecedents and consequences.Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology.

Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Phases of proactivity: How do we actually go the extra mile?

Paper presented at the European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology,

Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. J. (2009). Daily performance at work: Feeling recovered

in the morning as a predictor of day-level job performance. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 30(1),67-93.

Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. J. (in press, a). Feeling recovered and thinking about the


54/71


Bledow, R., & Frese, M. (2009). A situational judgment test of personal initiative and its

relationship to performance.Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 229-258.

Blickle, G., Witzki, A., & Schneider, P. B. (2009). Self-initiated mentoring and career success: A

predictive field study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(1), 94-101.

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual

Review of Psychology, 53(1), 279-307.

Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work: Research, theory, and practice. Lexington, MA:

Lexington Books.

Brown, D. J., Cober, R. T., Kane, K., Levy, P. E., & Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive personality and

the successful job search: A field investigation with college graduates. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91(3), 717-726.

Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting before leaving: The mediating

effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 93(4), 912-922.

Campbell, D. J. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of

Management Executive, 14(3), 52-66.

Carless, S. A., & Bernath, L. (2007). Antecedents of intent to change careers among psychologists.

Journal of Career Development, 33(3), 183-200.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for



55/71


Chiaburu, D. S., Marinova, S. V., & Lim, A. S. (2007). Helping and proactive extra-role behaviors:

The influence of motives, goal orientation, and social context. Personality and Individual

Differences, 43(8), 2282-2293.

Claes, R., & Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A. (1998). Influences of early career experiences, occupational

group, and national culture on proactive career behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

52(3), 357378.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO

five factor inventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment

Resources.

Crant, J. M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real

estate agents.Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 532-537.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations.Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2007). Personal initiative, commitment and affect at work.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(4), 601-622.

Dorenbosch, L., Van Engen, M. L., & Verhagen, M. (2005). On-the-job innovation: The impact of

job design and human resource management through production ownership.Creativity and

Innovation Management, 14(2), 129-141.

Druskat, V. U., & Kayes, D. C. (2000). Learning versus performance in short-term project teams.

Small Group Research, 31(3), 328-353.



56/71


Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., ONeill, R. M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. E. (1997). Reading the wind:

How middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic

Management Journal, 18(5), 407-425.

Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., ONeill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue

selling and organizational change.Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 716-736.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10),

1040-1048.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of

Psychology, 53(1), 109-132.

Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2005). Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality:

The role of fit with jobs and organizations. Personnel Psychology, 58(4), 859-891.

Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2000). Conservatives approach to work: Less prepared for future work

demands?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(1), 171-195.

Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2001). The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity studies.

Human Performance, 14(1), 97-124.

Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (2002). Rethinking the effects of stressors: A longitudinal study on

personal initiative.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(3), 221-234.

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3),

300-319.



57/71


Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative (PI): An active performance concept for work in

the 21st century.Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187.

Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative:

Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 70(2), 139-161.

Frese, M., Garst, H., & Fay, D. (2007). Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships between

work characteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural equation

model.Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1084-1102.

Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences

between East and West Germany.Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 37-63.

Frese, M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C. J. D. (1999). Helping to improve suggestion systems: Predictors

of making suggestions in companies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1139-

1155.

Frese, M., Van Gelderen, M., & Ombach, M. (2000). How to plan as a small scale business owner:

Psychological process characteristics of action strategies and success.Journal of Small

Business Management, 38(2), 1-18.

Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H. C.

Triandis, M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 271-340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting



58/71


Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. (2006). Promoting felt responsibility for constructive

change and proactive behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1089-1120.

Gagn, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of

leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level

multi-domain perspective.Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.

Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34.

Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (in press). Good soldiers andgood actors: Prosocial and impression

management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors.Journal of

Applied Psychology.

Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (in press). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational

and proactive perspectives.Academy of Management Annals.

Grant, A. M., Parker, S.K., & Collins, C. G. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior:

supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology,

62(1), 31-55.

Grant, A. M., & Sumanth, J. J. (in press). Mission possible? The performance of prosocially



59/71


Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive

behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts.Academy of Management Journal, 50(2),

327 - 347.

Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. (in press). Leader vision and the development of

adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study.Journal of Applied Psychology.

Hacker, W. (1985). Activity: A fruitful concept in industrial psychology. In M. Frese & J. Sabini

(Eds.), Goal directed behavior: The concept of action in psychology (pp. 262-283).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279.

Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Positive gain spirals at work: From

job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 78-91.

Heine, S. J., Markus, H. R., Lehman, D. R., & Kitayana, S. (1999). Is there a universal need

for positive self-regard?Psychological Review, 106(4), 766-794.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.

American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.

Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress

process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International



60/71

Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2008). Creating flexible work arrangements through

idiosyncratic deals.Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 655-664.

Howell, J. M., & Boies, K. (2004). Champions of technological innovation: The influence of

contextual knowledge, role orientation, idea generation, and idea promotion on champion

emergence.Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 123-143.

Howell, J. M., & Shea, C. M. (2001). Individual differences, environmental scanning, innovation

framing, and champion behavior: Key predictors of project performance. Journal of

Product Innovation Management, 18(1), 15-27.

Hyatt, D. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work group

characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50(3),

553-585.

Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2005). Goal regulation across time: The effects of feedback and affect.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 453-467.

Isen, A. M. (1999). On the relationship between affect and creative problem solving. In S. W. Russ

(Ed.), Affect, creative experience, and psychological adjustment (pp. 3-17). Philadelphia:

Taylor & Francis.

Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior.Research

in Organizational Behavior, 13,1-53.

Isen, A. M., & Reeve, J. (2005). The influence of positive affect on intrinsic and extrinsic



61/71

Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers adjustments to

organizations.Academy of Management Journal 29(2), 262-279.

Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry process:

Disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(5), 779-794.

Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2001). Job search and employment: A

personality-motivational analysis and meta-analytic review.Journal of Applied Psychology,

86(5), 837-855.

Kim, T. Y., & Wang, J. (2008). Proactive personality and newcomer feedback seeking: The

moderating roles of supervisor feedback and organizational justice. In M. A. Rahim (Ed.),

Current Topics in Management(Vol. 13, pp. 91-108). London: Transaction Publishers.

Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of

team empowerment.Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58-74.

Lambert, T. A., Eby, L. T., & Reeves, M. P. (2006). Predictors of networking intensity and network

quality among white-collar job seekers.Journal of Career Development, 32(4), 351-365.

Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the

twenty-first century.Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.

Latham, G. P., & Saari, I. M. (1984). Do people do what they say? Further studies on the

situational interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(4), 569-573.



62/71

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task

performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125-152.

Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the big five

to motivation to learn and development activity.Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 927-

935.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible Selves.American Psychologist, 41(9), 954-969.

Martin, L. L., Ward, D. W., Achee, J. W., & Wyer, R. S. (1993). Mood as input: People have to

interpret the motivational implications of their moods. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 64(3), 317-326.

Maurer, T. J., Weiss, E. M., & Barbeite, F. G. (2003). A model of involvement in work-related

learning and development activity: The effects of individual, situational, motivational, and

age variables.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 707-724.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal

cooperation in organizations.Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.

McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban, D. B. (2007). Disentangling role

perceptions: How perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efficacy relate to

helping and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1200-1211.



63/71

Mitchell, T. R., & Daniels, D. (2003). Motivation. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp.

225-254). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M., A. (2003). Work Design. In W. C. Bor

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	acharya-chatursen
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

Bindl Parker Proactive Work Behavior APA Handbook

Documents